Page 13 of 20

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 8:39 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote:
Maybe, but there is still the distinction between those things we are uncertain about that can in fact be described/encompassed by others with a fair degree of certainty [mathematically, scientifically, logically, etc], and those things that appear instead rooted in the manner in which, among other things, I construe the meaning of dasein above.

A distinction which is not helpful as I live my life, basically because I don't have access to that knowledge. I'm always limited by my experiences and abilities.

For example, if I need to tie off a boat and I don't know much about knots them I'm faced with uncertainty on how to do it. The fact that there are people who know how to do it, that there are effective knots and ineffective knots which have been scientifically verified does not help me in the least.

Sure, later I could research knots, practice and use them in the future. But I can do the same research with respect to ethics. If I was in situation that did not work out as I hoped, then I any number of "experts" who can give advice on how to improve the results. The quality of life of the expert and his/her ability to deal with particular situations, is evidence that the advice and techniques work.


Okay, with respect to an ethical conflict that most here are likely to be familiar with, draw a comparison between the knots example above and the gap between your current value judgment regarding this conflict and the value judgments of those who are trained as ethicists to encompass an argument far more likely to secure the optimal "quality of life" for all those involved in the conflict.

What on earth are you actually arguing here? There clearly is a gap between those who know very little about knots and those who know practically everything about them.

But how would that gap be closed with respect to conflicting goods? For example, how would it be encompassed pertaining to, say, the construction of Trump's wall on the border with Mexico? One can clearly imagine a huge gap between those who know little or nothing about building such a wall and those who are experts. But how about the gap between those who argue that it is wrong to build this wall and those who argue that it is right?

Chess? A game in which there are fixed rules, with moves that any particular human brain either will or will not have the capacity to calculate better than another human brain. A game in which computers have been programmed to out "think" even the most sophisticated flesh and blood "masters"?


phyllo wrote: Yes, a game. I'm playing a game in a particular context ... a personal state (tired, irritated, focused, distracted), an opponent that I probably did not select and who I may know nothing about. I have a certain knowledge and skill and so does my opponent. The existence of masters and computers able to precisely calculate the variations does enter into the game beyond what I and my opponent have learned from them prior to the start of the game.


It seems we are more or less in sync about chess as a game embedded in a set of either/or rules long established; and in which individual minds will be more or less equipped to master them.

But what of the is/ought examples that I noted above? What is the equivalent here when we bring in our own "expert" ethicists to resolve these or other conflicting goods?

Or am I still missing a crucial component of his argument?


phyllo wrote: What you seem to miss is that what you post is a looking back.
You're not interested in "how ought one to live?", you're interested in "how ought one have lived?" ... yesterday, last month, last year.
A lot of the things that you bring up are irrelevant while playing the game.


I don't understand your point here. The past, present and future are just manifestations of the same human condition. How they are implicated in a chess game is one thing, how they are implicated in conflicting value judgments that may revolve around the game of chess something different.

Or so it certainly seems to me "here and now".

Unless, of course, you or others are able to persuade me that "in reality" "as a matter of fact" they are not really all that much different at all.

It is perfectly true, as the philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.

Kierkegaard


You take what you've learned from the past about chess into the present such that in the future you will have learned all that much more. You play chess better.

Now, with respect to any particular moral conflict that might come along in playing the game, how do we determine in turn which frame of mind reflects the most rational assessment? You become a better ethicist.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 9:31 pm
by phyllo
Okay, with respect to an ethical conflict that most here are likely to be familiar with, draw a comparison between the knots example above and the gap between your current value judgment regarding this conflict and the value judgments of those who are trained as ethicists to encompass an argument far more likely to secure the optimal "quality of life" for all those involved in the conflict.

What on earth are you actually arguing here? There clearly is a gap between those who know very little about knots and those who know practically everything about them.
I'm arguing that whether one is talking about knots or abortions, one is making a decision based on current experience, limited knowledge and uncertainty. That does not prevent people from deciding or learning. The existence of experts makes no difference to the decision that one is making in the present.
It seems we are more or less in sync about chess as a game embedded in a set of either/or rules long established; and in which individual minds will be more or less equipped to master them.
No. You don't understand what I'm saying about it.
The past, present and future are just manifestations of the same human condition.
The past, present and future are not equivalent. The evaluations used in each is very different. It's the difference between evaluating whether to should draw a card while playing a card game and evaluating whether you should have drawn a card after the game is over. Since in the latter case, you know the result of the game, the evaluation is not the same.
Now, with respect to any particular moral conflict that might come along in playing the game, how do we determine in turn which frame of mind reflects the most rational assessment? You become a better ethicist.
You keep asking the same thing over and over. And you ignore all the responses.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2018 11:19 pm
by phyllo
Funny thing. I don't recall a single time when you understood something that I wrote. Did that ever happen? :-k

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 5:20 pm
by Ecmandu
I'm growing weary of iambiguous and his problem.

If free will doesn't exist, then it matters not to such a person, whether you discuss it or not. (Logical conclusion) when something doesn't matter, people don't discuss it.

The act of iambiguous discussing this, shows blatantly that he agrees freewill exists.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 7:16 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote: I'm arguing that whether one is talking about knots or abortions, one is making a decision based on current experience, limited knowledge and uncertainty. That does not prevent people from deciding or learning. The existence of experts makes no difference to the decision that one is making in the present.


We will clearly have to agree to disagree about this then. There are decisions made by doctors who perform abortions that are predicated on the objective knowledge they must accumulate relating to human biology -- knowledge pertaining to sex and pregnancy. Then knowledge pertaining to a particular set of learned skills that successfully brings an unwanted pregnancy to an end.

And the doctor performing it can be either a Communist or a fascist, a man or a woman, gay or straight, black or white, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, American or Russian, short or tall, fat or thin.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious: that there is no equivalent of this once we shift gears from abortion as a medical procedure to abortion embedded morally/politically in conflicting goods.

The experience, knowledge and certainty that a doctor can acquire in order to in fact abort a pregnancy is there for all to see.

What experience, knowledge and certainty must an ethicist acquire in order to establish abortion as in fact either moral or immoral?

It seems we are more or less in sync about chess as a game embedded in a set of either/or rules long established; and in which individual minds will be more or less equipped to master them.


phyllo wrote: No. You don't understand what I'm saying about it.


Does or does not the game of chess revolve around long-established rules regarding how the pieces either can or cannot to moved? Are these rules not applicable to all players? Are not some players able to move these pieces such that they either win or lose the game?

And yet in the film Searching For Bobby Fischer -- viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2465377&hilit=Searching+for+Bobby+Fischer#p2465377 -- the narrative focuses in turn on issues that revolve instead around the is/ought world. Ought the father have driven his son to focus so much of his time on the game? Ought the father have pushed the son into approaching the game as one in which winning and losing took precedence over love of the game itself?

Was the son's decent, caring, compassionaite personality [defended fiercely by his mother] an obstacle that had to be yanked out of him in order to ruthlessly crush the competition. As, for example, Jonathan Poe had been taught?

Let's focus the beam there.

The past, present and future are just manifestations of the same human condition.


phyllo wrote: The past, present and future are not equivalent. The evaluations used in each is very different. It's the difference between evaluating whether to should draw a card while playing a card game and evaluating whether you should have drawn a card after the game is over. Since in the latter case, you know the result of the game, the evaluation is not the same.


That's your distinction. Mine revolves more around the skills required to calculate choices in playing a game like poker and the skills required to calculate whether it is moral or immoral to gamble on a poker game.

The past, present and future are all involved in these calculations. But the success rate is there to be seen among the players. But what of the ethicists? How do we calculate their success rate?

Now, with respect to any particular moral conflict that might come along in playing the game, how do we determine in turn which frame of mind reflects the most rational assessment? You become a better ethicist.


phyllo wrote: You keep asking the same thing over and over. And you ignore all the responses.


Well, from my frame of mind, your frame of mind seems intent on convincing us that, when push comes to shove, there really is no difference between accumulating knowledge to play the game and accumulating knowledge to assess any moral conflicts that might arise as a result of playing the game.

It's really as simple as that, right?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 7:33 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote:Funny thing. I don't recall a single time when you understood something that I wrote. Did that ever happen? :-k


Just for the record...

To the best of my recollection, I recall instances on other threads when you rather handily explained my own point of view to others. In fact, I recall pointing that out to them.

You do seem to grasp more than others my own basic understanding of dasein out in the is/ought world. You're just hell bent on reminding me again and again and again that never, ever, ever, will "I" as an existential contraption there be applicable to YOU. :wink:

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 7:49 pm
by iambiguous
Ecmandu wrote: I'm growing weary of iambiguous and his problem.


Come on, how hard can that be?

Ecmandu wrote: If free will doesn't exist, then it matters not to such a person, whether you discuss it or not. (Logical conclusion) when something doesn't matter, people don't discuss it.

The act of iambiguous discussing this, shows blatantly that he agrees freewill exists.


Here I keep going back to dreams. I don't know about the dreams of others, but in mine I am absolutely convinced "in the dream" that I am freely calling the shots. However preposterous the twists and turns, it's all my own doing.

Now, sure, I wake up in the morning. And then I know for sure that I am really calling the shots. At least given the extent to which I can ever really understand the world around me; and in turn am willing to acknowledge that my options are often limited. Quite beyond my control at times.

But if mind is matter and matter immutably interacts per the laws of nature, how do I go about ascertaining for certain that "I" is not so much an existential contraption, as an existential mechanism?

Sure, some here will blatantly insist they grasp this going all the way back to how and why Existence itself came to be.

I'm just a bit more uncertain here myself.

Edit.

Or take the plot unfolding in the 4th episode of the second season of Westworld -- "The Riddle Of the Sphinx" : www.ign.com/articles/2018/05/14/westwor ... the-sphinx

Here there is an absorbing exploration of/examination into the matter of identity as, technologically, we get closer and closer to an increasingly more sophisticated AI world. One in which mind as matter and matter as mind become increasingly more blurred.

In particular the sequence revolving around James Delos.

You tell me what to make of it?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 8:47 pm
by phyllo
You do seem to grasp more than others my own basic understanding of dasein out in the is/ought world. You're just hell bent on reminding me again and again and again that never, ever, ever, will "I" as an existential contraption there be applicable to YOU. :wink:
See. I didn't write that. I wrote ...

- all thinking consists of contraptions.

- I would call them tools rather than contraptions.

- I have control over which 'tools' I use.

- I try out 'tools' which appear to be effective.

- I drop 'tools' which don't work for me.

- it doesn't matter if 'I' is merely an existential contraption. I don't dwell on that.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:59 am
by Prismatic567
iambiguous wrote:You do seem to grasp more than others my own basic understanding of dasein out in the is/ought world. You're just hell bent on reminding me again and again and again that never, ever, ever, will "I" as an existential contraption there be applicable to YOU. :wink:
Iambiguous, I believe you DO NOT understand what 'dasein' proper is prior to inventing your own definition and version of 'what is dasein'. Todate I have spent more than 2 months full time on Being and Time [still ongoing and need to spend more time], so I have a reasonable grasp of it.

In addition I don't believe you understand what is 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' as well.

It is due to your ignorance of the above terms that you interpret them in your own version and thus ended in a mess down the inauthentic path and more so with an evil intent [subconsciously] to trap others into your hole.

Btw, can you give an idea of what is your understanding of what is dasein-proper as in Being and Time, plus the terms authentic and inauthentic. In addition, explain what is the difference between your own version of dasein and the original version in BT.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 3:48 pm
by phyllo
Then knowledge pertaining to a particular set of learned skills that successfully brings an unwanted pregnancy to an end.

And the doctor performing it can be either a Communist or a fascist, a man or a woman, gay or straight, black or white, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, American or Russian, short or tall, fat or thin.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious: that there is no equivalent of this once we shift gears from abortion as a medical procedure to abortion embedded morally/politically in conflicting goods.

The experience, knowledge and certainty that a doctor can acquire in order to in fact abort a pregnancy is there for all to see.

What experience, knowledge and certainty must an ethicist acquire in order to establish abortion as in fact either moral or immoral?
Why is killing even an ethical issue? Because people don't want to be killed and they don't want those that they care about to be killed. If it wasn't upsetting then it wouldn't even be part of morality.

But you don't accept that as part of the knowledge and experience that an ethicist must have ... knowledge of human nature and human needs which are fundamentally based in biology.

Does or does not the game of chess revolve around long-established rules regarding how the pieces either can or cannot to moved? Are these rules not applicable to all players? Are not some players able to move these pieces such that they either win or lose the game?
There are the rules and there are the psychological factors that players bring to the game ... the human factors.
Just as in ethics, there is the physical/material context and the physiological.
Was the son's decent, caring, compassionaite personality [defended fiercely by his mother] an obstacle that had to be yanked out of him in order to ruthlessly crush the competition. As, for example, Jonathan Poe had been taught?

Let's focus the beam there.
How can we focus it there when we don't even agree about how to approach and how to evaluate the situation?

I think there ways to approach it. But no matter what I say, you're going to respond that it's in my head, or I'm insisting that everyone think as I do, or someone thinks differently so that means that all approaches are equivalent, etc.
But what of the ethicists? How do we calculate their success rate?
You deny that there is any measure of success.

People dying, people living. Tortured, not tortured. Suffering, not suffering. You don't seem to consider these things as measures of a successful ethical society. Right?

Okay, you said it. There is really nothing more to discuss.

I expressed my point of view (over the span of many years). You're not convinced. That would seem to end it.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:47 pm
by phyllo
If all outcomes are equivalent, then there is no basis for morality and ethics. Some outcomes must be considered better than others. Biological needs have to be the first level of that evaluation.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:29 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote:
You do seem to grasp more than others my own basic understanding of dasein out in the is/ought world. You're just hell bent on reminding me again and again and again that never, ever, ever, will "I" as an existential contraption there be applicable to YOU. :wink:
See. I didn't write that. I wrote ...

- all thinking consists of contraptions.


Sure, a contraption in the broadest sense. A contraption involving nature and nurture, genes and memes, words and worlds, logic, culture, personal experiences, childhood indoctrination, sense perception, cognition etc. etc.

But there is still the way in which each of us as individuals put all of those components together subjectively/subjunctively to experience particular thoughts relating to particular contexts.

Why, with respect to the objective world of math, science and empirical facts, does our thinking overlap so much more readily than our thinking relating to identity, value judgments and political prejudices?

And where are the conflicts far more likely to be prevalent?

phyllo wrote:
- I would call them tools rather than contraptions.

- I have control over which 'tools' I use.

- I try out 'tools' which appear to be effective.

- I drop 'tools' which don't work for me.

- it doesn't matter if 'I' is merely an existential contraption. I don't dwell on that.


Of course you don't dwell on that!

Once you start in on speculating about your sense of self in the manner in which I do, well, there it is, the hole!

Therefore I think that you think yourself into believing that your understanding of and control over these "tools" is just enough to keep you out of it. Indeed, it kept me out of it for many, many years.

I merely suggest that this narrative is more a psychological component of the ego -- a defense mechanism -- allowing those able to sustain it to suckle on the comfort and consolation of having one or another font in which to reconfigure "I" into I.

Still, I've never been able to quite grasp how you intertwine religion and philosophy into a frame of mind such that when you use these "tools" in engaging others in behaviors involving conflicting goods, you manage to convince yourself that you use them more reasonably than they do.

Other than in insisting that your "tools" have allowed you to grasp things like Communism such that those who fail to grasp it as you do are not using their own set of "tools" as effectively.

Really, what other way is there to interpret it?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:54 pm
by iambiguous
Prismatic,

This is more or less where we left off above:


Prismatic567 wrote: Note in Barrett's Irrational Man, he did point out and highlight the evil hole that humans are facing or in. He ultimately warned readers to get out of that evil hole or ensure one do not fall into it. Barrett did suggest solutions [only generally] but 'you' choose to be stuck in that evil hole and continue to dig deeper to trap others to fall into it and live a life of psychological sufferings - that's an evil intent and act.


Why on earth would I imagine that Barrett would construe the practical implications of "rival goods" in the same manner that I do?

And my intent [re dasein] is to grapple with the is/ought world given the assumption [mine] that we live in a No God world. How on earth do mere mortals arrive at the most or the only rational moral and political narrative/agenda when confronted with these rival goods?

How do you do it? Provide for us an existential trajectory that intertwines the experiences you had in your life and the knowledge/information/ideas you had access to such that you are not in the hole I'm in. In regard to a value judgment all your own.

How would Buddha -- "the one who is awake" -- have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.

What does being "awake" mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provide here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics -- to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.

In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others...where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the "wrong" way.

Prismatic567 wrote: Btw, I have told you earlier, you are borrowing the term 'dasein'* without reasonably understanding what it is supposed to represent in its full range. Even if you want to use it for your own purpose you should have understood it reasonably [not necessary agree] before you deviate from it for your own use.
*By now I have spent lots of time and still reading B&T so I am reasonable [not fully yet] familiar with the concept of Dasein.


BTW, I have responed to this point any number of times above. I keep waiting for you to bring your own understanding of Heidegger's understanding of Dasein out into the world of actual conflicted behaviors derived from actual conflicted goods.

How about the points I raised above regarding the workman using a hammer on a nail and a Nazi soldier using a bullet on a Jew?

That aspect of Dasein. Differentiate the ontic from the ontological here.

Instead it's just more of the same intellectual contraptions:

Prismatic567 wrote:Here is one clue from B&T

Again, this expression [care] is to be understood as an ontological structure concept (compare chapter 6 of this division).
The expression [care] has nothing to do with "distress," "melancholy," or "the cares of life" which can be found ontically in every Da-sein. These -like their opposites, "carefreeness" and "gaiety"- are ontically possible only because Da-sein, ontologically understood, is care.
B&T pg 57 - Joan Stambaugh translation

This being fills in the significance of the term care, which is used in a purely ontological and existential way. Any ontically intended tendency of being, such as worry or carefreeness, is ruled out.
B&T pg 192


Those 'rival goods' that you mentioned are problems of the ontic average everydayness - i.e. ruled out for serious considerations. But what is most critical for the Dasein in B&T [including existentialism in general] is not the ontic-existentiell but rather the ontological existential structures and processes of Dasein. It is from these ontological roots that humans can find solutions to problems and realize human-based possibilities optimally.

I anticipate you will send the above to the 'Recycle Bin' as 'intellectual contraptions' I don't give a damm on your intention.


I challenge you [or anyone else] to bring this particular "world of words" out into the actual flesh and blood world of human interactions in conflict over conflicting goods.

Note to others:

Wouldn't you deem this to be basically an "intellectual contraption" as it relates to your own conflicted behaviors with others?

If not, please explain why.[/quote]

Prismatic567 wrote:As usual you are clueless in the above.
The above contain the basis for positive actions to be taken.

The quote from Heidegger above is telling you why you are wrong in going the direction [too involved in the ontic rather than the ontological] you are doing at present.


Then this:

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Anyway, on the bright side of pessimism there's this: moral nihilists are not anchored to one or another objectivist dogma. Therefore, the actual existential options available to them would seem to increase rather dramatically.


The above is merely an intellectual contraption.


Then this:

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Anyway, on the bright side of pessimism there's this: moral nihilists are not anchored to one or another objectivist dogma. Therefore, the actual existential options available to them would seem to increase rather dramatically.
The above is merely an intellectual contraption.


Try again to actually respond to the points that I raised in the post above.

Then we can [perhaps] resume our exchange. You know, substantively.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:59 pm
by phyllo
Still, I've never been able to quite grasp how you intertwine religion and philosophy into a frame of mind such that when you use these "tools" in engaging others in behaviors involving conflicting goods, you manage to convince yourself that you use them more reasonably than they do.
Maybe I don't "use them more reasonably than they do". I use what I got. I keep my eyes and ears open.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:02 pm
by phyllo
Of course, we don't even agree on the meaning of "reasonable" ... so this exchange can't be anything more than babble. :lol:

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:47 pm
by Ecmandu
Iambiguous, I refer you to this post:

viewtopic.php?p=2701133#p2701133

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:50 am
by Prismatic567
iambiguous wrote:Try again to actually respond to the points that I raised in the post above.

Then we can [perhaps] resume our exchange. You know, substantively.
I am not going to waste my time getting into the details with your "intellectual contraption" when you are not equipped with the foundations.

Here is one rival 'good' from Being and Time;

Heidegger in BT wrote:Da-sein is a being which I myself am, its being is in each case mine. p114

It could be the case that the who of everyday Da-sein is precisely not I myself. p115


In BT as above there are two perspectives to what is Dasein.
Thus your clinging to one perspective of eternal torture of being-in-a-HOLE is definitely inauthentic [you need to understand this term precisely].

As I had mentioned you need to understand [not necessary agree] fully re 'What is Dasein?' and what is authentic/inauthentic in relation to this particular hole-issue of yours.

How would Buddha -- "the one who is awake" -- have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.

What does being "awake" mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provide here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics -- to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.

In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others...where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the "wrong" way.
You quote the above re Buddhist Ethics without understanding the full picture which I am sure you will NEVER ever bother to read and understand.

If you understand the full perspectives [the details of the 4NTs and 8FPs - I have posted very often previously] of what you quoted above you would be able to get an effective head start to your dilemma.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 am
by Karpel Tunnel
Of course you don't dwell on that!

Once you start in on speculating about your sense of self in the manner in which I do, well, there it is, the hole!

Therefore I think that you think yourself into believing that your understanding of and control over these "tools" is just enough to keep you out of it. Indeed, it kept me out of it for many, many years.

I merely suggest that this narrative is more a psychological component of the ego -- a defense mechanism -- allowing those able to sustain it to suckle on the comfort and consolation of having one or another font in which to reconfigure "I" into I.
Notice the narrative. How it places him and other people in a hierarchy. How this could make the hole comfortable.

Because there are people who believe there are no objective values who move on from there, even thrive, have goals. There are a couple here.

If one makes oneself the brave victim and stay at the realization one does not believe in objective morals, refuse, then, to act in the world, grapple at others and feel superior when they neither 1) drop into the hole or 2) move forward without considering it a hole, the only pleasure left is to posit oneself as superior. Which is a lot easier than trying to do or make something one values, even if one does not consider it objectively good.

And lots of people get off on their holes. Puns accepted if not intended.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:29 pm
by iambiguous
The knowledge pertaining to a particular set of learned skills that successfully brings an unwanted pregnancy to an end.

And the doctor performing it can be either a Communist or a fascist, a man or a woman, gay or straight, black or white, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, American or Russian, short or tall, fat or thin.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious: that there is no equivalent of this once we shift gears from abortion as a medical procedure to abortion embedded morally/politically in conflicting goods.

The experience, knowledge and certainty that a doctor can acquire in order to in fact abort a pregnancy is there for all to see.

What experience, knowledge and certainty must an ethicist acquire in order to establish abortion as in fact either moral or immoral?


phyllo wrote: Why is killing even an ethical issue? Because people don't want to be killed and they don't want those that they care about to be killed. If it wasn't upsetting then it wouldn't even be part of morality.

But you don't accept that as part of the knowledge and experience that an ethicist must have ... knowledge of human nature and human needs which are fundamentally based in biology.


People don't want to be killed by tornadoes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions or tidal waves either. But who accuses these "natural disasters" of being immoral?

Unless, of course, some come to argue that God ought not to have created a planet where these calamitous events happen all the time.

It can be said that God or Nature created human biology, precipitating any number of contexts in which the death or the birth of the unborn takes place. And while both are clearly predicated on the objective facts embedded in the evolution of life on planet earth, they precipitate in turn very, very different reactions.

Why then don't our reactions here revolve around the sort of knowledge and experience an ethicist can glean from his or her own understanding of human biology?

Doctors can be praised by some for being skilled at aborting embryos and fetuses, while being condemned by others for acting immorally in doing precisely that.

Okay, Mr. Ethicist, using your knowledge and experience, tell us the moral obligation of all rational men and women here.

Was the son's decent, caring, compassionaite personality [defended fiercely by his mother] an obstacle that had to be yanked out of him in order to ruthlessly crush the competition. As, for example, Jonathan Poe had been taught?

Let's focus the beam there.


phyllo wrote: How can we focus it there when we don't even agree about how to approach and how to evaluate the situation?


All I ever do is to make the distinction between those who insist their way to approach social, political and economic confrontations that involve conflicting goods is the right way, versus those who argue that given conflicting sets of assumptions, conflicting goods can be defended.

So you are either telling us that how you view Communism is the way in which all reasonable people ought to, or you are acknowledging -- re "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine" -- that there are those able to reasonably defend Communism given a different set of assumptions about human interactions: "we" more than "me", "cooperation" more than "competition", the "collective" more than "individualism".

I'm merely noting that over the years I have come to abandon objectivism here. That, instead, here and now, I have come to grapple with human morality based on how I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But what of the ethicists? How do we calculate their success rate?


phyllo wrote: You deny that there is any measure of success.


No, I argue that assessments of success and failure are largely existential contraptions rooted in dasein historically and culturally. Whereas the objectivists insist that the only rational measure of either one is their own.

phyllo wrote: People dying, people living. Tortured, not tortured. Suffering, not suffering. You don't seem to consider these things as measures of a successful ethical society. Right?


This always revolves around the behaviors either prescribed or proscribed in any particular community in order to achieve the so-called "ideal" society.

Do aborted babies suffer? Are they tortured? Are they dying? What should a successful, ethical soiety prescribe and proscribe here?

phyllo wrote: I expressed my point of view (over the span of many years). You're not convinced. That would seem to end it.


You have come back to this particular frame of mind a number of times. Of course, from my frame of mind, I imagine that being convinced can only happen when a particular moral narrative/political agenda is accepted by both sides. One side convinces the other.

That this is an option for folks like you is, in my view, precisely that which sustains the comfort and the consolation embodied in a life that revolves around the "real me" in sync with an optimal set of moral guidelines.

Again, as I see it, that is basically the whole point of objectivism.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:57 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote:If all outcomes are equivalent, then there is no basis for morality and ethics. Some outcomes must be considered better than others. Biological needs have to be the first level of that evaluation.


But that just brings us [okay, me] back to the actual political contraption that any particular community employs in any particular historical and cultural context.

1] Might makes right. Those in power are able to enforce a set of behaviors such that the outcomes that they favor prevail. Either because they are convinced these outcomes reflect "the right thing to do", or because these outcomes sustain their own selfish interests.

2] right makes might. Folks in the community come to agree on a particular outcome as the embodiment of an enlightened human morality.

3] Democracy and the rule of law. Folks have conflicted assessments of the optimal outcomes but through moderation, negotiation and compromise different sets of political prejudices rise and fall depending on who is able to convince the citizens to vote them into power. The idea being that they are then willing to step aside [peacefully] should the populace come to view them with disfavor.

My argument here is basically that the outcomes that individuals prefer given a particular frame of mind in any particular context, is rooted historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And that the manner in which I have come to understand the existential interactions of these components out in a particular world have precipitated my dilemma above.

How, then, I ask the objectivists, has it not precipitated the same dilemma regarding their own conflicted behaviors with others.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 8:19 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote:Of course, we don't even agree on the meaning of "reasonable" ... so this exchange can't be anything more than babble. :lol:


And that would surely be a problem if we lived in a world where folks couldn't agree [or be shown] what it means to be reasonable regarding their interactions with others as they are understood by, say, epistemologists, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, plumbers, meteorologists or dentists.

In fact, regarding the overwhelming preponderance of our interactions with others in the either/or world, we can clearly agree on what either is or is not reasonable.

It's only when we bump into conflicts that revolve around conflicting value judgments that what appears to be reasonable to some may well be construed as babble to others.

Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that this exchange is unfolding on this particular thread on this particular board in this particular internet philosophy community? Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that we don't agree regarding the components of our respective narratives? Is it or is it not reasonable to note all of the facts that can be demonstrated to others regarding our own individual lives on this particular day?

On the other hand, is or is it not reasonable to argue that my points are more objectively true than yours?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 9:37 pm
by phyllo
Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that this exchange is unfolding on this particular thread on this particular board in this particular internet philosophy community? Is it or is it not reasonable to argue that we don't agree regarding the components of our respective narratives? Is it or is it not reasonable to note all of the facts that can be demonstrated to others regarding our own individual lives on this particular day?

On the other hand, is or is it not reasonable to argue that my points are more objectively true than yours?
Again, you don't say what "reasonable" means. You simply repeat the word as though we have a common understanding of it. Which would seem to be an understanding which transcends personal dasein.

How could we have this common understanding?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:11 pm
by phyllo
My argument here is basically that the outcomes that individuals prefer given a particular frame of mind in any particular context, is rooted historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Why limit yourself to historical and cultural roots? Any preference that any individual pulls out of his ass has to be just a valid. Crazy, logical, illogical, stupid, clever, reasonable, unreasonable ... it's all the same ... an individual's particular frame of mind based purely on personal likes, wants, preferences.

You can't say that one individual's preferences are better than some other individual's. Right? (Expect your own of course. :D )

So you have a world with billions of preferred outcomes which are equivalent. Or a society with hundreds, thousands or millions of equivalent outcomes.

So you decide morality and ethics by a democratic vote.

But I bet that you prefer that vote over other systems of deciding it because you expect the "normal" people to outvote the bat-shit crazies. When you you get down to it, you are placing your faith in some kind of 'human nature' which transcends the historical, cultural and personal "quirkiness". IOW, the existence of a transcending set of preferences.

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:36 pm
by phyllo
People don't want to be killed by tornadoes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions or tidal waves either. But who accuses these "natural disasters" of being immoral?

Unless, of course, some come to argue that God ought not to have created a planet where these calamitous events happen all the time.
Completely irrelevant to the point raised.
Okay, Mr. Ethicist, using your knowledge and experience, tell us the moral obligation of all rational men and women here.
Tell me how I can tell you anything without it being dismissed as being only in my head?

Re: What is Dasein?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:45 pm
by phyllo
phyllo wrote:
People dying, people living. Tortured, not tortured. Suffering, not suffering. You don't seem to consider these things as measures of a successful ethical society. Right?



This always revolves around the behaviors either prescribed or proscribed in any particular community in order to achieve the so-called "ideal" society.
So the mass killings of the USSR, the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge were just the "community standard"?

Or maybe the noble efforts of the leadership trying to build an ideal society?

What can one say about it?